Abstract: Christopher J. Preston’s use of the doctrine of double effect to claim that hypothetical climate engineers might very well be less culpable for climate harms than those who continue to emit greenhouse gases is unpersuasive. His argument rests shakily on the ability to determine and quantify climate harms and to distinguish forensically between their causes. He is also largely silent about the distributional effects of these harms and their ethical and political ramifications.
Keywords: climate engineering; stratospheric aerosol injection; doctrine of double effect; unintended harms; distributional climate impacts
Full response available to subscribers only. Click here for access.
More in this issue
Winter 2017 (31.4) • Review
The Theory of Self-Determination, Fernando R. Tesón, ed.
This volume brings together international lawyers and philosophers, both skeptics and proponents, to debate the right to self-determination, enhancing our understanding of the normative issues ...
Winter 2017 (31.4) • Essay
Looking Inward Together: Just War Thinking and Our Shared Moral Emotions
In this essay Valerie Morkevicius argues that just war thinking serves a social and psychological role that international law cannot fill. Law is dispassionate and ...
Winter 2017 (31.4) • Essay
A Practically Informed Morality of War: Just War, International Law, and a Changing World Order
Just war, international law, and world order are all historically conditioned realities that interrelate with one another in complex ways. This essay explores their historical ...